256:
271:. The CRF theory appears to have been created as a lobbying tool by the online gambling industry in order to present poker as a game of skill and therefore meriting a more lenient regulatary approach than games reliant on pure chance. The notability of this theory must therefore not rest upon its peer reviewed scientific/mathematical credentials-but, if any, its use as a lobbying tool and its influence on legislation and regulation.--
215:
After this theory was rejected (it is a question of pure mathematics, and from the mathemaical point of view it's pure nonsense) the article was deleted from the German
Knowledge and things remained silent. By chance I found this article in the English Knowledge - it is just a translation from the
211:
The authors of this article tried to establish a phony theory (using some pseudo-math) in order to push their views on the question, whether poker should be regarded as a game of skill. However, they even succeeded to place their theories at the institute of common law (!) of the university of
166:
262:
The world is full of silly theories, if not outright fraudalent ones. What makes a possibly silly/fake theory notable, and therefore within
Knowledge's scope, is not if it is true or not but its social impact, e.g.
287:
160:
352:. I read KTo288's comment (objection?) as an invitation to write an article about the topic as fallacy or fraud, but this is not it, nor is this a sound place to start towards it.
92:
87:
96:
119:
79:
126:
318:
202:
181:
369:
without prejudice. If it can be rewritten to indicate the applicability of the theory to gambling legislation, it can be reintroduced.
148:
203:
http://de.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/1._Juni_2010#Kritische_Wiederholungsh.C3.A4ufigkeit_.28erl..2C_gel.C3.B6scht.29
357:
264:
378:
361:
341:
310:
280:
248:
235:
142:
61:
17:
205:
since this is a phony theory without any scientific content, see discussion there and discussion page of this article here:
138:
353:
83:
188:
335:
304:
244:
231:
198:
75:
67:
397:
374:
40:
268:
240:
227:
201:
is based on the German article on "Kritische
Wiederholungshäufigkeit", which was deleted in June 2010, see
154:
393:
36:
370:
174:
57:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
392:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
276:
206:
255:
223:
330:
299:
219:
Knowledge should not offer a platform for anybody to establish his one silly theories.
53:
113:
272:
323:
292:
212:
Hamburg. Thereafter they tried to misuse
Knowledge as a reference.
386:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
207:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Critical_repetition_frequency
288:
list of
Behavioural science-related deletion discussions
224:
http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Importance_Skill_Chance.JPG
109:
105:
101:
52:, no notability of this theory has been demonstrated.--
173:
216:
German one - and I think, it should be deleted, too.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
400:). No further edits should be made to this page.
187:
8:
317:Note: This debate has been included in the
286:Note: This debate has been included in the
319:list of Games-related deletion discussions
316:
285:
222:When deleting this article, the file
7:
24:
265:Moon landing conspiracy theories
254:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
199:Critical repetition frequency
76:Critical repetition frequency
68:Critical repetition frequency
417:
389:Please do not modify it.
226:should be deleted, too.
62:07:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
379:02:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
362:17:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
354:Truth or consequences-2
342:14:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
311:14:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
281:14:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
269:MMR vaccine controversy
249:13:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
236:13:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
344:
313:
408:
391:
340:
338:
333:
328:
309:
307:
302:
297:
258:
241:Roland Scheicher
228:Roland Scheicher
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
416:
415:
411:
410:
409:
407:
406:
405:
404:
398:deletion review
387:
371:Robert McClenon
336:
331:
324:
322:
305:
300:
293:
291:
197:The article on
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
414:
412:
403:
402:
382:
381:
364:
346:
345:
314:
283:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
413:
401:
399:
395:
390:
384:
383:
380:
376:
372:
368:
365:
363:
359:
355:
351:
348:
347:
343:
339:
334:
329:
327:
320:
315:
312:
308:
303:
298:
296:
289:
284:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
261:
257:
253:
252:
251:
250:
246:
242:
238:
237:
233:
229:
225:
220:
217:
213:
209:
208:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
388:
385:
366:
349:
325:
294:
259:
239:
221:
218:
214:
210:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
161:free images
394:talk page
54:Ymblanter
37:talk page
396:or in a
260:Comment:
120:View log
39:or in a
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
367:Delete
350:Delete
273:KTo288
139:Google
97:delete
50:delete
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
375:talk
358:talk
326:czar
295:czar
277:talk
245:talk
232:talk
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
189:TWL
118:– (
377:)
360:)
321:.
290:.
279:)
267:,
247:)
234:)
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
373:(
356:(
337:·
332:·
306:·
301:·
275:(
243:(
230:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.